A Citizen, Pro Se

December 9, 2007

My pupose here —

My purpose here, as Annie Citizen Pro Se, is to exercise my First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech.  I believe I have both a moral obligation and a civic duty to make public the details about how my Disability Civil Rights case has been handled by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC).

State and local agencies like ICRC were created under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to investigate civil rights complaints and enforce the civil rights laws spelled out in the FHA.  When a civil rights complaint is received by an agency like ICRC (or referred to them by the HUD Regional Office — in this case, the Chicago hub), the agency is supposed to investigate all relevant facts and come to a determination (a ‘Finding’) of  ‘reasonable cause’ or of  ‘no reasonable cause’.  The Finding is supposed to be based on all available facts (‘the totality of facts’, one source says) and is supposed to determine if (1) the evidence  supports the possibility that a civil rights violation may have occurred and (2) the evidence is strong enough that the case would be accepted in a state or Federal Court.

Yes, friends, there will be lots of this kind of legal language on this blog.  So why should you care?  One reason is — anybody can become disabled, and when you become disabled you *need* to have your civil rights protected.  But the bigger reason is this:  If the handling of my case is an example of ‘HUD civil rights enforcement’ — then no one in America has the civil rights spelled out in the Fair Housing Act.

I could begin at the beginning, I suppose — landlord did this, landlord did that, and so on.  But my intention in this blog is to make public the terribly flawed procedures used by the Indiana Civil Rights Commission in my Disability Civil Rights case.  With that as my intent, it makes more sense to start off right in the middle — by showing you the list of evidence omitted by ICRC when they made the Finding on my case.  So that memo — with a list of omitted evidence that runs a page-and-a-half long, with small print and wide margins — was my first post here.  This explanation is my second.  As time goes on, I will post every bit of that omitted evidence here.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: